The enemy within...
CBC Covers Harper's SPP Police Provocateurs in Montebello TV broadcast from CBC local news
SPP Police Provocateurs Outed in Quebec Actual video footage taken by demonstration organizers
Police Pose As Protesters At Montebello Summit TV broadcast on CTV NewsNet
Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest Article on cbc.ca/news
2007-08-23
2007-08-20
2007-08-16
Awesome initiative
There is a city called Dongtan being built in China - designed from scratch - to be as self-sufficient and sustainable as possible.
CNN newsclip
Developer's website
Ubercool. I really hope they succeed as a role model for other developers and governments everywhere around the world.
CNN newsclip
Developer's website
Ubercool. I really hope they succeed as a role model for other developers and governments everywhere around the world.
2007-08-15
economic liability / guillotine
Apparently self-storage is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US. If I understand correctly, people are paying to store stuff that was replaced by new stuff bought, with maxed out credit cards...
I dunno, but I figure that not too far from now, when banks start threatening to repossess mortgage collateral, we're gonna start seeing a lot of this junk (new and old) hit the second-hand market all at once. I'm glad I'm not in that situation because I suspect a lot of them are gonna find themselves even deeper have-nots than they are trying so hard to avoid admitting today... If I still have a job by then and civil unrest doesn't loom too close to my home, I might go on a buying spree. Either that or I'll establish a security guard and compound business! :)
I dunno, but I figure that not too far from now, when banks start threatening to repossess mortgage collateral, we're gonna start seeing a lot of this junk (new and old) hit the second-hand market all at once. I'm glad I'm not in that situation because I suspect a lot of them are gonna find themselves even deeper have-nots than they are trying so hard to avoid admitting today... If I still have a job by then and civil unrest doesn't loom too close to my home, I might go on a buying spree. Either that or I'll establish a security guard and compound business! :)
2007-08-14
Fixing the imbalance
Being green is in the long-term economic interest, although it is primarily perceived as against many Canadians' financial interests, at least in the short term.
Unfortunately, manufacturers know they cannot count on the "early adopters" (those who are willing to pay a premium to get the latest technology) phenomenon because many of those that are green at heart cannot afford it. This is why I believe the following steps are necessary to restore a little ecological balance to the financial system: 1. promote the perception of value of green; 2. label goods with their environmental footprint; and 3. adopt more holistic financial incentives to encourage suppliers, investors and consumers to make, sponsor and buy more "green."
1) Promoting the value of "Green". Cynics will be quick to undermine any public awareness campaign as being motivated by personal gain (some under-educated author of a letter-to-the-editor called David Suzuki a "light-bulb salesman" for his part in the PowerWise campaign - I am still ashamed of that). You and I know that in the vast majority of cases, that is simply not the prime motivator, and even if it is, they can't be faulted for working within the capitalist/free enterprise system (or does that make them feel betrayed? hmmm). What has to be made very clear is that green buyers are motivated by something a lot larger, a lot more honorable, than greed.
2) Footprint labeling. It is very difficult for consumers to "vote with their dollars" when there are no effective means of comparing the environmental footprint (harm caused in the production and eventual disposal) of one product over another. And how to know which is better when marketers and advertisers flaunt their wares with such meaningless terms as "all-natural" and the like? There is also no standard for the "organic" certification. If manufacturers are unwilling to self-regulate, the federal government should impose regulations and standard labels much like those for nutritional value in foods and hazardous materials in... just about everything.
3) Holistic financial incentives. On this point I believe the Ontario government deserves a lot of credit: they have eliminated the PST on qualifying EnergyStar appliances, offered mail-in-rebates for hi-eff furnaces and air conditioners. All these programs reduce the cost barriers to the acquisition of environmentally-friendly yet more expensive products. Another incentive, much less known, is a pay-per-output mechanism where companies must share the cost burden of recycling all the packaging materials that accompany their products. If this cost-sharing mechanism were to be extended to cover the recovery and recycling of their actual products, manufacturers would pay a little more attention to what materials are used in production. These costs would have to be shared with consumers, so products compete on the basis of the cost-efficiency of raw materials, transformation, AND end-of-life recovery. The flat rate deposit per item (tires, engine oil and most recently electronics in Ontario) doesn't provide this kind of competition. One thing I am glad every government has firmly resisted is reducing the gas tax - such a move would be a counter-incentive and confuse the pro-environment image they are all currently trying to create for themselves.
Being green shouldn't mean buying less, it should mean buying better. Implemented together in a concerted effort, promoting the value of green, imposing footprint labeling standards, and extending financial incentives and burden-sharing programs will effectively harness the competitive forces and neutralize the barriers to adoption of a more sustainable lifestyle for all to enjoy for generations.
Unfortunately, manufacturers know they cannot count on the "early adopters" (those who are willing to pay a premium to get the latest technology) phenomenon because many of those that are green at heart cannot afford it. This is why I believe the following steps are necessary to restore a little ecological balance to the financial system: 1. promote the perception of value of green; 2. label goods with their environmental footprint; and 3. adopt more holistic financial incentives to encourage suppliers, investors and consumers to make, sponsor and buy more "green."
1) Promoting the value of "Green". Cynics will be quick to undermine any public awareness campaign as being motivated by personal gain (some under-educated author of a letter-to-the-editor called David Suzuki a "light-bulb salesman" for his part in the PowerWise campaign - I am still ashamed of that). You and I know that in the vast majority of cases, that is simply not the prime motivator, and even if it is, they can't be faulted for working within the capitalist/free enterprise system (or does that make them feel betrayed? hmmm). What has to be made very clear is that green buyers are motivated by something a lot larger, a lot more honorable, than greed.
2) Footprint labeling. It is very difficult for consumers to "vote with their dollars" when there are no effective means of comparing the environmental footprint (harm caused in the production and eventual disposal) of one product over another. And how to know which is better when marketers and advertisers flaunt their wares with such meaningless terms as "all-natural" and the like? There is also no standard for the "organic" certification. If manufacturers are unwilling to self-regulate, the federal government should impose regulations and standard labels much like those for nutritional value in foods and hazardous materials in... just about everything.
3) Holistic financial incentives. On this point I believe the Ontario government deserves a lot of credit: they have eliminated the PST on qualifying EnergyStar appliances, offered mail-in-rebates for hi-eff furnaces and air conditioners. All these programs reduce the cost barriers to the acquisition of environmentally-friendly yet more expensive products. Another incentive, much less known, is a pay-per-output mechanism where companies must share the cost burden of recycling all the packaging materials that accompany their products. If this cost-sharing mechanism were to be extended to cover the recovery and recycling of their actual products, manufacturers would pay a little more attention to what materials are used in production. These costs would have to be shared with consumers, so products compete on the basis of the cost-efficiency of raw materials, transformation, AND end-of-life recovery. The flat rate deposit per item (tires, engine oil and most recently electronics in Ontario) doesn't provide this kind of competition. One thing I am glad every government has firmly resisted is reducing the gas tax - such a move would be a counter-incentive and confuse the pro-environment image they are all currently trying to create for themselves.
Being green shouldn't mean buying less, it should mean buying better. Implemented together in a concerted effort, promoting the value of green, imposing footprint labeling standards, and extending financial incentives and burden-sharing programs will effectively harness the competitive forces and neutralize the barriers to adoption of a more sustainable lifestyle for all to enjoy for generations.
2007-08-12
polling for policy
I participated in a telephone poll recently on the subject of national policies and political parties. How could I resist? They asked questions like "Do you agree with the course that the Stephen Harper government is currently on, and do you believe they will maintain this course if they form the next majority government?" and "How well do you know what Liberal Leader Stephane Dion stands for, and is he doing a good job at making himself known to Canadians?"
The obvious slant of these sample Q's is due to my selective memory - I was continuously trying to detect whether there was any bias in favour of one party or the other, but overall, I just couldn't tell for sure (though I suspect for the Liberals, if any at all). So I asked at the end who commissioned the poll, and when and where could I see the results. Naturally the minimum wage pollster and the part-time mcdonald's hamburger team leader supervisor didn't have that information.
I can't decide whether to trust these polls enough to justify spending my time answering them. On the one hand, I'd like to believe that they are legitimate research leading to actual policy making, in which case I'd be happy to participate and have my say. On the other hand, I just can't shake the suspicion that they are used for spin doctoring, marketing or advertising existing policies (or digging for personal campaign-style attack material).
From now on, if I want to be heard (or at least have my say, whether it is read or not), I'll express my opinions in a letter (or two or three or more) to my MP. It's free, I can take the time to research and justify my opinions, and is the way of influencing public policy (at least in theory). But then again, when used properly, poll results can sway public opinion (if only indirectly as it affects what newspaper editors include in their editions), and somebody out there is surely trying to force a little yang to my yin so it has to balance out.
Speaking of balance, perhaps, as with all other things, a multi-pronged approach is probably best. Sounds (small p) political, doesn't it? There - I've successfully talked myself out of having to change anything I do.
PS. Poll in question was Insight Canada Research, 1800-363-0499, number 994.
The obvious slant of these sample Q's is due to my selective memory - I was continuously trying to detect whether there was any bias in favour of one party or the other, but overall, I just couldn't tell for sure (though I suspect for the Liberals, if any at all). So I asked at the end who commissioned the poll, and when and where could I see the results. Naturally the minimum wage pollster and the part-time mcdonald's hamburger team leader supervisor didn't have that information.
I can't decide whether to trust these polls enough to justify spending my time answering them. On the one hand, I'd like to believe that they are legitimate research leading to actual policy making, in which case I'd be happy to participate and have my say. On the other hand, I just can't shake the suspicion that they are used for spin doctoring, marketing or advertising existing policies (or digging for personal campaign-style attack material).
From now on, if I want to be heard (or at least have my say, whether it is read or not), I'll express my opinions in a letter (or two or three or more) to my MP. It's free, I can take the time to research and justify my opinions, and is the way of influencing public policy (at least in theory). But then again, when used properly, poll results can sway public opinion (if only indirectly as it affects what newspaper editors include in their editions), and somebody out there is surely trying to force a little yang to my yin so it has to balance out.
Speaking of balance, perhaps, as with all other things, a multi-pronged approach is probably best. Sounds (small p) political, doesn't it? There - I've successfully talked myself out of having to change anything I do.
PS. Poll in question was Insight Canada Research, 1800-363-0499, number 994.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)